@DavidReed the notion of a "general polynomial" is a bit strange. The general polynomial over a field always has Galois group $S_n$ even if there is not polynomial over the field with Galois group $S_n$

Hey guys. Quick question. What would you call it when the period/amplitude of a cosine/sine function is given by another function? E.g. y=x^2*sin(e^x). I refer to them as variable amplitude and period but upon google search I don't see the correct sort of equation when I enter "variable period cosine"

@LucasHenrique I hate them, i tend to find algebraic proofs are more elegant than ones from analysis. They are tedious. Analysis is the art of showing you can make things as small as you please. The last two characters of every proof are $< \epsilon$

I enjoyed developing the lebesgue integral though. I thought that was cool

But since every singleton except 0 is open, and the union of open sets is open, it follows all intervals of the form $(a,b)$, $(0,c)$, $(d,0)$ are also open. thus we can use these 3 class of intervals as a base which then intersect to give the nonzero singletons?

uh wait a sec...

... I need arbitrary intersection to produce singletons from open intervals...

hmm... 0 does not even have a nbhd, since any set containing 0 is closed

I have no idea how to deal with points having empty nbhd

o wait a sec...

the open set of any topology must contain the whole set itself

so I guess the nbhd of 0 is $\Bbb{R}$

Btw, looking at this picture, I think the alternate name for these class of topologies called British rail topology is quite fitting (with the help of this WfSE to interpret of course mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/3410/…)

Since as Leaky have noticed, every point is closest to 0 other than itself, therefore to get from A to B, go to 0. The null line is then like a railway line which connects all the points together in the shortest time

So going from a to b directly is no more efficient than go from a to 0 and then 0 to b

hmm...

$d(A \to B \to C) = d(A,B)+d(B,C) = |a|+|b|+|b|+|c|$

$d(A \to 0 \to C) = d(A,0)+d(0,C)=|a|+|c|$

so the distance of travel depends on where the starting point is. If the starting point is 0, then distance only increases linearly for every unit increase in the value of the destination

But if the starting point is nonzero, then the distance increases quadratically

Combining with the animation in the WfSE, it means that in such a space, if one attempt to travel directly to the destination, then say the travelling speed is 3 ms-1, then for every meter forward, the actual distance covered by 3 ms-1 decreases (as illustrated by the shrinking open ball of fixed radius)

only when travelling via the origin, will such qudratic penalty in travelling distance be not apply

More interesting things can be said about slight generalisations of this metric:

Hi, looking a graph isomorphism problem from perspective of eigenspaces of adjacency matrix, it gets geometrical interpretation: question if two sets of points differ only by rotation - e.g. 16 points in 6D, forming a very regular polyhedron ...

To test if two sets of points differ by rotation, I thought to describe them as intersection of ellipsoids, e.g. {x: x^T P x = 1} for P = P_0 + a P_1 ... then generalization of characteristic polynomial would allow to test if our sets differ by rotation ...

1D interpolation: finding a polynomial satisfying $\forall_i\ p(x_i)=y_i$ can be written as a system of linear equations, having well known Vandermonde determinant: $\det=\prod_{i<j} (x_i-x_j)$. Hence, the interpolation problem is well defined as long as the system of equations is determined ($\d...

Any alg geom guys on? I know zilch about alg geom to even start analysing this question

Manwhile I am going to analyse the SR metric later using open balls after the chat proceed a bit

To add to gj255's comment: The Minkowski metric is not a metric in the sense of metric spaces but in the sense of a metric of Semi-Riemannian manifolds. In particular, it can't induce a topology. Instead, the topology on Minkowski space as a manifold must be defined before one introduces the Minkowski metric on said space. — baluApr 13 at 18:24

I've a mesh specified as an half edge data structure, more specifically I've augmented the data structure in such a way that each vertex also stores a vector tangent to the surface. Essentially this set of vectors for each vertex approximates a vector field, I was wondering if there's some well k...

Assuming axiom of choice and CH, I can define a $\aleph_1$ enumeration of the irrationals by label them with ordinals from 0 all the way to $\omega_1$

It would seemed we could have a cover $\bigcup_{\alpha < \omega_1} (r_{\alpha},r_{\alpha+1})$. However the rationals are countable, thus we cannot have uncountably many disjoint open intervals, which means this union is not disjoint

This means, we can only have countably many disjoint open intervals such that some irrationals were not in the union, but uncountably many of them will

If I consider an open cover of the rationals in [0,1], the sum of whose length is less than $\epsilon$, and then I now consider [0,1] with every set in that cover excluded, I now have a set with no rationals, and no intervals.
One way for an irrational number $\alpha$ to be in this new set is b...

Suppose you take an open interval I of length 1, divide it into countable sub-intervals (I/2, I/4, etc.), and cover each rational with one of the sub-intervals.
Since all the rationals are covered, then it seems that sub-intervals (if they don't overlap) are separated by at most a single irrat...

(For ease of construction of enumerations, WLOG, the interval [-1,1] will be used in the proofs) Let $\lambda^*$ be the Lebesgue outer measure We previously proved that $\lambda^*(\{x\})=0$ where $x \in [-1,1]$ by covering it with the open cover $(-a,a)$ for some $a \in [0,1]$ and then noting there are nested open intervals with infimum tends to zero.

We also knew that by using the union $[a,b] = \{a\} \cup (a,b) \cup \{b\}$ for some $a,b \in [-1,1]$ and countable subadditivity, we can prove $\lambda^*([a,b]) = b-a$. Alternately, by using the theorem that $[a,b]$ is compact, we can construct a finite cover consists of overlapping open intervals, then subtract away the overlapping open intervals to avoid double counting, or we can take the interval $(a,b)$ where $a<-1<1<b$ as an open cover and then consider the infimum of this interval such that $[-1,1]$ is still covered. Regardless of which route you take, the result is a finite sum whi…

W also knew that one way to compute $\lambda^*(\Bbb{Q}\cap [-1,1])$ is to take the union of all singletons that are rationals. Since there are only countably many of them, by countable subadditivity this give us $\lambda^*(\Bbb{Q}\cap [-1,1]) = 0$. We also knew that one way to compute $\lambda^*(\Bbb{I}\cap [-1,1])$ is to use $\lambda^*(\Bbb{Q}\cap [-1,1])+\lambda^*(\Bbb{I}\cap [-1,1]) = \lambda^*([-1,1])$ and thus deducing $\lambda^*(\Bbb{I}\cap [-1,1]) = 2$

However, what I am interested here is to compute $\lambda^*(\Bbb{Q}\cap [-1,1])$ and $\lambda^*(\Bbb{I}\cap [-1,1])$ directly using open covers of these two sets. This then becomes the focus of the investigation to be written out below:

We first attempt to construct an open cover $C$ for $\Bbb{I}\cap [-1,1]$ in stages:

$\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},-\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3},-\frac{2}{3}, \frac{1}{4},-\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4},-\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{5},-\frac{1}{5}, \frac{2}{5},-\frac{2}{5},\frac{3}{5},-\frac{3}{5},\frac{4}{5},-\frac{4}{5},...$ or in short:

Actually wait, since as the sequence grows, any rationals of the form $\frac{p}{q}$ where $|p-q| > 1$ will be somewhere in between two consecutive terms of the sequence $\{\frac{n+1}{n+2}-\frac{n}{n+1}\}$ and the latter does tends to zero as $n \to \aleph_0$, it follows all intervals will have an infimum of zero

However, any intervals must contain uncountably many irrationals, so (somehow) the infimum of the union of them all are nonzero. Need to figure out how this works...

For $N+1$ clients, clearly Lotta will have to make sure all the first $N$ clients don't feel mistreated. Therefore, she'll take the $d_N$ days to make sure they are not mistreated. Then she visits client $N+1$. Obviously the client won't feel mistreated anymore. But all the first $N$ clients are mistreated and, therefore, she'll start her algorithm once again and take (by suposition) $d_N$ days to make sure all of them are not mistreated. And therefore we have the recurence $d_{N+1} = 2d_N + 1$